Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Ernest Brown v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 350 F.3d 338 (2003)

Citation
Ernest Brown v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 350 F.3d 338 (2003)
Parent Document
Ernest Brown v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 350 F.3d 338 (2003)
Effective Date
2003-11-19

Other Sections in This Document (58)

Full Text

712 chars
Under the teachings found in Building & Construction Trades Council v. NLRB, 64 F.3d 880 (3d Cir.1995), and Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 378, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), there need not be a "conflict" to justify vacatur of a consent decree; a "significant change" with no attendant conflict constitutes sufficient grounds for vacatur. Our review of the federal statute and regulations promulgated after 1974 reveals that not only did they significantly change the relevant due process landscape (originally sought to be cured by the Consent Decree) but that they gave broader and more comprehensive protection to PHA residents than had been available under the Consent Decree.